CONGRESSIONAL  LEGISLATION  AS  TO  INTER- 
STATE RAILWAY  TRAFFIC. 


To  the  Editor  of  The  Tribune : 

Sir  : The  conservative  action  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives’ Committee  of  Commerce,  which  is  announced  as  nine 
in  fifteen  in  favor  of  a National  Railway  Commission,  ren- 
ders a brief  review  of  the  Reagan  bill,  Avhich  is  five  years 
old,  and  which  this  vote  would  * seem  to  have  defeated  in  a 
committee  of  which  its  author  is  chairman,  of  probable  public 
interest.  Its  leading  features  were  as  follows  : 


UNJUST  DISCRIMINATIONS. 


First. — It  applied  its  restrictions  and  penalties  only  to  rail- 
roads and  exempted  inter-State  pipe  lines,  express  companies, 
lakes,  rivers,  oceans  and  canals  covering  30,000  miles  of  car- 
rying routes.  The  injustice  of  bridling  the  carriers  upon  land 
by  fixed  conditions  where  there  was  doubtful  jurisdiction, 
owing  to  State  lines,  charters,  etc.,  while  leaving  the  parallel 
carriers  upon  controlling  water  routes  free,  but  over  whom 
there  was  undisputed  National  authority,  seemed  too  apparent 
to  fair  minds  to  require  argument.  The  further  vote  of  the 
committee  by  two  to  twelve  not  to  include  the  waterways 
under  any  proposed  jurisdiction,  would  seem  a fair  corollary 
of  the  justice  of  its  first  conclusions  to  regulate  railways  only 
by  a Commission,  which  would  of  course  then  equitably  de- 
termine the  transportation  question  as  a whole  from  both 
water  and  rail  standpoints,  and  the  influence  and  bearings  of 
each  upon  the  other. 


REASONABLE  RATES. 


Second.  - -It  required  that  all  rates  should  be  reasonable. 
It  is  clear  that  a rate  that  might  be  unreasonable  upon  a 
mineral  road  carrying  a million  tons  of  coal  per  annum,  might 
be  less  than  reasonable  for  a road  of  the  same  length  carrying 


4 


I 


only  winter  travel  and  a small  fruit  and  general  business  in 
Florida.  A railway  of  200-foot  grades,  like  the  Denver  and 
Rio  Grande,  liable  to  winter  storm  stoppages,  and  carrying  a 
small  tonnage  through  a rocky  country,  might  reasonably  be 
entitled  to  much  higher  rates  than  the  same  number  of  miles 
of  railroad  in  Illinois  that  had  been  aided  by  Government 
grants  of  land,  built  upon  a prairie,  and  carrying  grain,  agri- 
cultural implements,  etc.,  through  a much  more  thickly  set- 
tled and  temperate  country.  The  bill  provided  the  reverse 
by  regulating  the  former  because  inter-State,  and  not  touch- 
ing the  latter  because  within  one  State.  Varying  standards  of 
rates  would  therefore  exist  as*now,  as  courts  or  juries  in  differ- 
ent parts  of  the  country  might  interpret  “ reasonable  charges;” 
but  our  citizens  now  have  access  to  the  same  and  State  courts 
on  the  same  questions,  and  in  no  case  east  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains  that  is  known  are  the  charter  charges  ever 
reached  by  actual  rates.  We  concur  that  railways  should 
charge  only  reasonable  rates,  if  they  can  be  reasonably  deter- 
mined. 

EQUAL  EXPEDITION. 

Third. — The  bill  next  required  equal  expedition.  It  is  a 
well-known  fact  that  dry  tgoods,  paying  75  cents  per  100 
pounds  from  New  York  to  Chicago,  go  quicker  than  coarser 
goods  that  pay  30  cents ; but  if,  to  fill  dry  goods  trains  to 
an  economical  carrying  maximum,  railways  put  on  some  cars 
of  coarser  freight  and  carry  it  at  quick  speed,  they  would 
violate  the  bill  if  they  did  not  carry  all  the  coarse  freights  at 
the  same  quick  speed.  Every  railway  company  of  the  State 
also  runs,  say,  one  train  for  fruits,  etc.,  at  special  speed  ; they 
always  give  live  stock  trains  a preference  over  dead  freight 
in  speed  and  running  rights,  and  run  butter  and  cheese 
express  freight  trains  on  quicker  time  than  they  run  aU  butter 
and  cheese,  in  order  that  the  former  may  catch  foreign 
steamers,  etc.,  but  these  differences  of  speed  were  declared 
illegal  by  the  bill. 

PROHIBITION  OF  “ POOLS.” 

Fourth. — The  bill  next  forbade  “ contracts,  agreements  or 
combinations  for  pooling  freights,  or  to  pool  the  freight  of 


different  and  competing  railroads,  by  dividing  aggregate  or 
net  proceeds.”  To  this  answer  was  made  that  many  railway 
pools  are  now  governing  and  forceful  under  existing  contracts. 
Such  old  pools  could  and  would  continue,  but  new  ones  were 
prohibited  and  new  companies  were  prohibited  from  entering 
old  pools,  and  that  would  result  in  injustice  to  some  one , because 
different  and  therefore  discriminating  rates  would  certainly 
ensue.  On  this  general  point  the  railways  claim,  without 
possibility  of  refutation,  that  the  great  majority  of  all  the 
railway  rates  on  the  general  tonnage  of  the  country  are  lim- 
ited by  the  charges  on  streams,  lakes,  canals  and  tides,  to 
standards  which  are  much  lower  than  anywhere  in  the  world 
for  like  service,  speed  and  distances.  There  are  20,000  miles 
of  such  river  rivalry,  3,000  miles  more  of  routes  on  the  great 
lakes,  and  a vast  free  coast  line  that  is  a veritable  coast  guard 
against  railway  extortion,  and  Congress  constantly  appropri- 
ates vast  sums  to  deepen  old  water  channels,  create  new  ones, 
improve  harbors,  the  Eads  jetties,  for  example,  etc.,  while  the 
Reagan  bill  urged  in  the  same  Congresses  sought  to,  or  would 
have,  the  certain  effect  of  crippling  the  parallel  railways. 
The  rail  rates  being  regulated  and  kept  low  by  these  limita- 
tions of  nature  and  statecraft,  the  railways  argued  that 
what  they  and  the  public  should  alike  desire  is  stable  and 
fixed  rates,  alike  to  all  under  like  facts  and  by  all  routes.  If 
harmony,  and  not . transportation  strife,  confusion  and  differ- 
ences, was  the  honest  purpose  of  the  bill,  why  prohibit  pools, 
which  are  the  best  devices  for  securing  that  great  and  uni- 
form result,  stopping  rate  wars,  secret  and  unjust  discrimina- 
tions, and  contests  of  localities,  which  destroy  financial  secur- 
ities and  promote  corporate  wrong  doing,  if  the  rates  under 
pools  be  not  unreasonable  and  no  higher  with  than  with- 
out them?  Mr.  Reagan  repeatedly  stated  that  his  bill  did  not 
attempt  to  fix  rates,  but  left  them  free  to  be  made  by  each 
carrier  for  itself.  Any  fair  person  will  say  that  if  there  were 
but  one  railroad  from  Chicago  to  New  York,  which  on  one  and 
the  same  day  made  six  different  rates  that  varied  but  two 
and  one-half  cents  per  100  pounds  each  from  30  cents  per  100 
pounds  downward,  and  30  cents  was  a reasonable  charge,  the 
forwarder  receiving  the  lowest  rate  would  get  seventeen  and 


6 


I 

one-half  cents,  which  would  be  a discrimination  of  twelve  and 
one-half  cents  and  in  its  worst  form,  it  being  merely  a ques- 
tion of  time  when  whoever  paid  30  cents  ivould  be  bankrupt, 
while  those  who  paid  seventeen  and  one-half  cents  might  get 
rich,  if  continued  long  or  on  large  quantities,  and  smaller  dif- 
ferences would  make  and  unmake  markets  as  well  as  men. 
Sure  commercial  wrong  would  exist  whether  one  road  has 
six  different  rates  or  six  roads  have  them,  as  the  Reagan 
bill  authorized  and  stimulated.  Railway  through  rates  being 
restricted  by  the  free  waterways,  they  cannot  be  excessive 
upon  the  great  carrying  bulk  of  the  country,  and  therefore, 
pools  which  secured  low  and  equal  rates,  were  vastly 
better  for  every  investor,  forwarder,  railway  consignee  and 
competitor  involved,  than  to  foster  the  different  rates  clearly 
encouraged  by  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  bill,  apparently 
under  the  hallucination  that  unjust  railway  war  is  honorable, 
or  rational  railway  and  public  competition.  The  thoughtful 
mercantile  as  well  as  railway  sentiment  of  the  country 
now  favors  honorably  observed  pools.  Their  result  is  adopted 
in  other  forms  in  England,  and  governs  the  French,  Prussian 
and  Belgian  railways,  because  Governmental  supervision  or 
purchase  has  almost  stopped  competition,  and  therefore  made 
the  rates  uniform,  as  was  the  clear  and  avowed  purpose  of  such 
purchases  and  control.  It  seemed  clear  to  those  arguing  the 
railway  views  in  this  country  that  any  railway  alliances  or 
pools  that  would  secure  by  fair  trade  and  public  methods  only 
the  results  of  the  Clearing  House  in  England,  territorial  dis- 
tricting as  in  France,  or  Governmental  purchase  as  in  Prussia 
and  Belgium,  would  prove  deeper  National  wisdom  than  for 
Congress  to  enact  a law  which  in  spirit  or  result  would  pro- 
long demonstrable  hostile  trade  or  railway  conditions,  and 
such  pools  should  be  legalized  and  not  outlawed.  The  Chief 
of  Governmental  Statistics  has  reported  to  Congress  that 
freight  pools  have  accomplished  good  results,  and  many  of 
their  former  antagonists  now  publicly  favor  them.  Yery 
much  more  can  be  said  in  their  favor. 

STOPPAGE  OF  CONCESSIONS. 

Fifth. — The  bill  prevented  “ all  rebates,  drawbacks  or  ad- 
vantages in  any  form,”  even  if  published  and  allowed  alike 


7 


to  all  patrons  for  good  and  public  commercial  reasons. 
It  was  argued  by  tlie  railway  companies  that  certain  draw- 
backs, if  granted  alike  to  all  under  substantially  like  circum- 
stances, are  mercantile  and  customary,  and  universally  recog- 
nized by  all  branches  of  trade.  The  Government  buys  ts 
supplies  at  a scale  of  discounts  based  on  quantity,  deliver- 
ies, sure  pay,  etc. ; it  demands  transportation  from  the  same 
railways  the  bill  sought  to  regulate,  at  less  than  the  rates 
charged  to  individuals  ; and  the  Government  pays  drawbacks 
upon  whiskey,  etc.,  exported  and  certain  articles  imported, 
under  mature  and  wise  provisions  of  law  open  alike  to  all. 
Railway  concessions  to  large  coal  companies  as  compared  with 
occasional  car-load  shippers ; to  large  manufacturing  estab- 
lishments, which  change  crude  into  manufactured  articles,  and 
thus  furnish  two  shipments  for  the  railways  ; and  many  other 
like  and  recognized  equities  of  allowance  are  clearly  reason- 
able and  defensible,  work  good  to  both  capital  and  labor, 
surely  equalize  localities,  develop  resources,  employ  people 
in  new  industries,  and  more  harm  than  benefit  would  follow 
their  stoppage,  because  they  are  justified  by  the  wholesale 
principles  of  trade.  A great  many  undisputed  instances  of 
this  need  and  equity  were  cited  without  refutation  being  at- 
tempted, but  I cordially  agree  that  all  discriminating  and 
preferential  inter-State  drawbacks  should  be  stopped  by 
national  law  if  needful. 

THROUGH  AND  LOCAL  RATES. 

Sixth. — The  bill  next  provided  that  no  local  charge,  if  inter- 
state, should  be  higher  than  a through  inter-State  rate. 
Judge  Reagan  said  that  if  one  company  should  purchase  and 
consolidate  under  one  authority,  a line  from  Boston  to  San 
Francisco,  it  could  then  charge  as  much  between  any  two 
intermediate  points  in  different  States  as  from  Boston  to  San 
Francisco.  Another  and  parallel  inter-State  company,  unable 
to  consolidate,  or  which  was  “frozen  out”  in  such  an  amalga- 
mation, as  for  example,  from  North  Adams,  Mass.,  to  Troy, 
N.  Y.,  forty -two  miles  long,  could  not  however  charge  for  its 
local  traffic  more  than  it  received  as  its  small  proportion  of 
the  lowest  rate  made  on  the  same  goods  from  Boston  to  New 


8 


Orleans  against  the  free  ocean  routes,  although  it  handled, 
warehoused  at  both  ends,  loaded  and  unloaded,  and  delayed 
its  cars  for  the  local  traffic,  while  it  simply  acted  as  a bridge 
for  the  through  transaction  to  pass  quickly  over.  The  two 
transactions  cited  clearly  have  no  possible  relation  to  each 
other,  and  in  no  sense  does  either  call  for  such  unjust 
National  interference.  It  was  shown  that  the  country  is 
thickly  strewn  with  such  striking  illustrations. 

PUBLIC  ANNOUNCEMENT  OF  RATES. 

Seventh. — The  bill  required  the  posting  of  all  rates  publicly 
five  days  before  their  adoption.  This  is  clearly  impracticable 
and  unjust,  when  the  parallel  water  carriers,  from  Chicago 
to  Buffalo,  and  on  the  Erie  canal,  for  examples,  change  rates 
on  a moment’s  notice,  and  by  always  changing  immediately 
after  the  railways  post  their  several  rates,  the  water  transport- 
ers could  keep  enough  under  the  railways  to  render  competi- 
tion with  them  practically  nil,  and  the  railways  empty  of 
through  trade.  The  same  objection  held  as  to  the  interna- 
tional competition  of  the  Grand  Trunk  Railway,  which  Con- 
gress is  of  course  unable  to  reach  by  its  law  making  or  en- 
forcing powers,  and  this  principle  and  fact  becomes  more  im- 
portant as  the  Canadian  Pacific  road  approaches  competition 
with  our  own  Pacific  railways.  In  our  rivalry  with  the  Grand 
Trunk  Railway  we  now  have  three  sources  of  preventing  it 
from  unduly  diverting  traffic  away  from  American  rails  : first , 
by  freight  or  tonnage  pools ; second,  by  the  payment  of  draw- 
backs, if  that  company  compels  such  a course  ; and  third , by 
being  able  to  meet  its  rates  promptly  by  telegraph  if  neces- 
sary. Each  and  every  of  these  just  means  of  needful  protec- 
tion and  defence  was  wholly  taken  from  every  railroad  of  the 
Union  by  the  Reagan  bill.  We  could  not  pool  with  a Canadian 
company  and  thus  amicably  restrict  its  traffic  by  agreement ; 
we  could  not  pay  a drawback,  however  many  it  secretly  paid 
out  of  its  earnings  in  Canada,  or  however  much  freight  it  so 
diverted,  and  if  compelled  to  publish  our  rates  five  days 
before  we  could  change  them,  that  company  might  yet  alter 
or  rebate  the  part  of  its  rates  accruing  in  Canada  at  a 
moment’s  notice  against  its  and  our  water  routes,  which 


9 

could  all  do  tlie  same  thing.  Was  this  National  justice,  pro- 
tection or  equality  ? 

DAMAGES  FOE  VIOLATION  OF  THE  ACT. 

Eighth. — No  damage  for  violating  the  proposed  Act  was  to 
be  less  than  $500  with  a further  penalty  of  $1,000,  one-half 
this  penalty  to  be  paid  to  the  human  dandruff  called  “ in- 
formers.” The  District  Attorneys  were  required  by  the 
bill  to  prosecute  suits  in  their  discretion  “ when  advised  of 
violation  by  the  affidavit  of  any  reputable  citizen ; ” and 
judgments  so  rendered  were  to  be  against  the  persons  as  well 
as  corporations  offending.  It  seems  only  to  require  a state- 
ment of  these  Star  Chamber  provisions  to  stamp  them  with 
just  answers  from  just  minds.  The  25,000  or  more  railway 
station  agents  of  the  country,  with  vast  numbers  of  clerks 
and  others  having  power  necessarily  delegated  to  them  to 
secure  public  promptness,  and  all  with  varying  degrees  of 
discretion  and  intelligence,  might  commit  errors,  either  of 
judgment,  or  under  instructions,  or  by  wrong  intent,  or  by 
collusion,  which  would  create  the  shysters’  and  informers’ 
harvest.  Above  all  this  petty  espionage  the  railway  com- 
panies claim  that  they  are  performing  great  public  functions 
and  vast  benefits  honorably  and  efficiently  in  the  main,  and 
should  not  be  treated  as  if  the  preliminary  methods  of  the 
Inquisition  had  been  restored  by  an  Act  of  the  Congress  of  a 
Nation  that  should  be  alike  free  and  just  to  all. 

These  are  the  general  provisions  of  the  bill  stated  against 
the  greatly  condensed  grounds  for  the  direct  business  and 
practical  opposition  to  them  ; but  there  were  other  and  larger 
objections. 

INEQUALITY  OF  APPLICATION. 

The  New  York  Central  road  is  entirely  within  the  limits  of 
one  State,  in  this  respect  sovereign,  from  Buffalo  to  Albany 
and  New  York,  and  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  is  entirely 
within  one  State,  from  Pittsburg  or  Erie  to  Philadelphia, 
thus  covering  both  the  vast  river  and  lake  traffic  upon  which 
those  great  companies  were  to  be  legally  free  by  the  bill.  The 
Pennsylvania  Railroad  being  free  at  Philadelphia  and  under 
the  bill  bound  at  New  York,  it  would  naturally  work  against 


10 


I 


New  York  more  than  it  does  now,  and  this  was  one  of  many 
geographical  discriminations  not  now  existing,  encouraged 
by  the  bill  and  its  penalties.  • The  West  Shore,  Erie  and  the 
Baltimore  and  Ohio  railways  parallel  to  the  New  York  Cen- 
tral and  Pennsylvania,  but  happening  to  pass  through 
different  States,  were  per  contra , and  for  that  inter-State 
reason  only,  seized  by  the  bill  and  all  their  inter-State  local 
rates  were  to  be  fixed  and  regulated  by  their  through 
charges  in  manner  before  stated.  The  Grand  Trunk  Kail- 
way, the  St.  Lawrence  River  carriers,  those  upon  the  Erie 
canal  and  the  New  York  Central  and  Pennsylvania  railways 
were  therefore  free  from  the  proposed  legislative  forgings 
upon  an  immense  tonnage,  while  the  operations  of  the  vari- 
ous limitations  and  penalties  would,  in  many  and  essen- 
tial respects,  throttle  the  equally  useful  parallel  West 
Shore,  Erie,  Lackawanna,  Baltimore  & Ohio  and  Chesapeake 
and  Ohio  railways.  The  alleged  legislative  and  national 
equality  claimed  by  Mr.  Reagan  therefore  became  gross 
inequality,  which  was  to  be  confirmed  and  perpetuated  by 
national  enactment.  For  example,  it  required  that  the 
Erie  Company’s  rates  from  Buffalo  to  New  York  be  not 
exceeded  by  its  local  rates  from  any  points  east  of  Buffalo 
to  New  York.  No  such  prohibition  by  Congress  could 
affect  the  New  York  Central  road,  which  could  there- 
fore carry  the  50,000,000  bushels  of  grain  arriving  at  Buffalo 
annually,  at  any  through  rates  it  saw  fit,  and  without  any 
national  legal  result  upon  its  local  or  way  traffic.  It 
could  get  25  or  other  per  cent,  more  for  'the  recognized 
and  just  increased  expense  of  local  over  through  freight, 
while  the  Erie  Company  could  not  under  the  same  bill  get  a 
corresponding  or  any  increase,  although  it  handles  its  local 
freight  twice  and  its  through  freight  but  once.  It  would 
therefore  become  only  a question  of  time  when  the  New  York 
Central  Company  might  bankrupt  the  Erie  Company,  and  any 
other  parallel,  if  inter-State,  railway,  if  the  State  of  New  York 
or  the  courts  did  not  interfere.  In  many  other  cases  there 
are  certain  great  carriers  in  various  parts  of  the  country 
that  by  natural  and  legislative  limits,  as  for  example,  the 
Illinois  Central  and  Chicago  & Alton,  escaped  the  provisions 


! 


11 


and  limitations  of  the  bill  yet  paralleled  others  which  fell 
under  its  unequal  and  unjust  operation.  The  Mississippi 
Biver  boats,  the  Illinois  Central  road,  the  lakes,  and  the  New 
York  Central  could  form  a free  through  freight  line  from 
Memphis  to  New  York  that  might  take  all  the  business  or 
shackle  their  all  rail  inter-State  rivals  with  legal  manacles 
upon  the  local  traffic  of  each,  if  the  latter  simply  and  equally 
met  the  former’s  rates.  Clearly  the  former  could  increase  their 
through  traffic  at  the  expense  of  the  latter  and  get  better 
average  rates  from  their  untouched  local  traffic  than  the  latter, 
and  would,  therefore,  seriously  injure  the  latter  in  a prolonged 
period.  In  the  first  instance,  not  a local  or  way  rate  was 
affected  by  those  free  and  exempted  routes.  In  the  latter- 
all  way  rates  w^ere  decided  by  the  shares  each  received  of  the 
same  through  rates. 

ADVOCACY  OF  A NATIONAL  COMMISSION. 

To  consider  equitably  and  wisely  these  and  many  other 
special  and  general  data  as  applied  to  a vast  variety  of 
climate,  conditions,  rivalry  and  tonnage,  the  railway  officials 
advocated  a National  Bailway  Commission,  mainly  of  inquiry 
into  the  wrongs,  dangers  and  ranges  of  the  problem,  rather 
than  enact  unwise  and  surely  injurious  experimental  legisla- 
tion without  requisite  pre-knowledge.  In  a small  and  iso- 
lated country  like  England,  governed  by  one  Parliament,  which 
enforces  like  laws  over  an  undivided  and  insulated  territory, 
over  2,000  bills  bearing  upon  this  subject  have  been  introduced 
and  repealed  since  1840.  If  the  problem  has  been  so  difficult 
there,  it  is  infinitely  greater  in  a territory  vastly  larger  in  ex- 
tent and  traffic  and  in  national,  international  and  waterway 
complications.  The  transportation  question  in  Maine,  with 
its  lumber  and  small  manufactories,  differs  from  that  in 
Florida.  The  problem  in  Pennsylvania  in  the  movement  of 
iron,  ores  and  coal,  differs  from  that  in  Texas  in  the  trans- 
portation of  live  stock.  And  the  problem  which  might  be 
solved  in  grain-carrying  Illinois  and  Iowa,  or  even  on 
the  Northern  Pacific  road,  would  differ  essentially  from  the 
conditions  surrounding  the  Denver  & Bio  Grande  and  the 
Mexican  Central  companies  running  different  merchandise, 


12 


through  sterile  countries  with  over  long  distances  and  con- 
necting foreign  nations.  The  questions  on  interior  railways 
differ  from  those  parallel  to  water,  as  from  St.  Louis  to  New 
Orleans,  and  the  theorem  was  perhaps  easier  of  solution  on 
the  Pacific  roads  chartered  by  the  National  Legislature  than 
on  the  New  York  Central,  chartered  only  by  the  State  Legis- 
lature. So  on  almost  ad  infinitum  through  the  great  varieties 
of  locality,  circumstance  and  traffic  which  demand  thought 
and  forethought.  For  these  and  many  other  equally  cogent 
trade  reasons  a commission  was  strongly  advocated,  and 
also  because  the  railways  prefer  to  deal  with  a board  ap- 
pointed for  the  purpose  and  charged  by  the  Government 
with  investigating  and  stopping,  if  found,  any  unjust  railway 
action  under  its  control,  no  less  than  to  garrote  any  unjust 
anti-monopolistic  or  communistic  doctrines.  It  is  far  better 
than  to  be  annually  subjected  to  the  impracticable  and  hurt- 
ful disposition  of  the  questions  suggested  by  Mr.  Reagan, 
who,  notwithstanding  the  proofs  repeatedly  adduced  upon 
all  the  points  involved,  came  back  year  by  year  with 
the  old  bill,  and  always  with  lack  of  practical  knowl- 
edge, yet  actuated  by  a spirit  of  animosity  to  what  he  regards 
and  calls  the  monopolies  of  the  country.  We  preferred,  there- 
fore, upon  both  broad  and  selfish  grounds,  and  believed  the 
forwarders  of  the  country  would  intelligently  prefer,  to  go  to 
fair  men  appointed  for  the  purpose  rather  than  to  impending 
victims  or  favorites  of  the  ballot  alone.  All  the  millers  of 
the  country  are  monopolists  because  nobody  else  makes  flour ; 
while  there  are  many  other  carriers  than  the  railroads.  It 
has  not,  however,  for  that  reason  been  proposed  to  regulate 
the  inter-State  commerce  in  flour.  It  was  cited,  for  example, 
that  flour  made  in  Minneapolis  and  sold  in  New  York  was 
perhaps  true  inter-State  commerce  within  the  meaning  of 
the  Constitution.  If  flour  sold  for  $5  a barrel  in  New  York 
and  the  freight  was  10  per  cent,  of  that  sum,  the  right  of  Con- 
gress to  legislate  upon  the  10  per  cent,  only  and  discard 
the  90  per  cent.,  was  of  questionable  public  utility  and 
legality.  The  railways  have  in  the  past  made  the  farms 
of  the  country  somewhere  near  equal  average  values,  while 
yet  transporting  the  products  of  all  to  common  destinations 


13 


at  varying  rates  per  mile  for  varying  distances.  Tlieir  policy 
lias  selfishly  or  intelligently  resulted  in  National  develop- 
ment, and  mainly  through  them  the  farms  and  homes  of 
Minnesota  find  the  same  domestic  and  foreign  markets  and  re- 
sources as  those  of  New  York.  The  public  generally  knows 
the  past  growth  of  Minnesota,  but  they  do  not  know  that  New 
York  Secretary  of  State  Bigelow  said  in  the  census  report  for 
1875 : “ The  net  increase  in  the  number  of  farms  of  all  sizes 
in  this  State  since  1870  is  25,586,  while  farms  from  100  to 
500  acres  have  increased  34,548.”  This  answered  the  charge 
that  the  low  through  rates  injured  the  agricultural  interests 
of  this  State.  People  do  not  usually  increase  the  number 
or  size  of  unprofitable  farms. 

EVILS  OF  “TINKERING.” 

If  this  wise  equalizing  railway  policy  were  improperly 
interfered  with  by  National  railway  tinkering,  the  re- 
sult might  be  disastrous.  Tonnage  would  seek  the  nearest 
seaport  because  of  lower  rates  and  fewer  interferences  with 
local  traffic.  Baltimore  would  gain  at  New  York’s  expense. 
If,  to  protect  local  rates,  which  railways  frankly  admit 
yield  greater  profit  than  through  rates,  although  both 
give  forwarders  a return  for  values  received,  the  through 
rates  were  put  up  by  each  carrier  so  that  the  through 
cost  from  St.  Paul  to  New  York  was  advanced  to  the 
sum  total  of  varying  and  many  local  tariffs  charged 
in  order  to  protect  local  traffic,  the  Northwest  would  be 
injured  past  belief,  and  an  extra  session  of  Congress 
would  be  perhaps  invoked.  If,  for  further  illustration,  we 
bring  the  wheat  of  the  Genesee  Valley  farmer  to  New  Y^ork 
for  10  cents  per  bushel  while  it  costs  the  Winnipeg  pro- 
ducer 30  cents,  of  which  we  keep  only  6 cents  per  bushel 
instead  of  10,  is  our  policy  wise  nationally  or  a wrong  locally, 
and  in  a national  congress  which  should  govern  ? Should 
the  local  rate,  over  which  Congress  has  no  control,  go  down, 
or  the  through  rate  go  up  because  it  controls  it,  and  is  either 
course  demanded  by  public  justice  or  need  ? Clearly,  the 
New  York  farmer  pays  but  ten  cents  to  get  his  grain  to  mar- 
ket— the  Winnipeg  farmer  three  times  as  much.  The  Reagan 


/ 


14 


bill  forced  these  unwise  local  alternatives  upon  most  inter- 
state railways  in  the  country,  and  it  is  a national  good  that 
the  bill  was  defeated  for  that  reason  alone. 

I have  refrained  from  stating  the  legal  objections  on  the 
score  of  charter  rights,  State  limits,  original  rates,  railway 
consolidations,  geographical  rivalries,  as  Baltimore  against 
New  York,  etc.,  etc.,  preferring  to  present  a few  of  the  many 
practical  and  business  objections  to  the  bill. 

IMPORTANCE  OF  A NATIONAL  TRIBUNAL. 

A railway  commission  was  therefore  strenuously  urged 
by  the  railways,  and  no  intelligent  railway  officer  should 
deny  that  the  question  is  “affected  with  a public  interest.” 
We  have  had  Tariff  Commissions,  one  on  the  Geneva  award, 
boundary,  fishery  and  postal  commissions,  and  an  Electoral 
Commission,  all  for  comparatively  smaller  ends,  and  conced- 
ing all  that  has  been  claimed  of  vast  public  interest  in  the 
railway  question,  the  vaster  it  is  the  more  surely  its  diversity 
and  importance  need  a tribunal  to  winnow  away  the  chaff 
from  both  sides  of  the  issue  and  grind  only  sound  grains  into 
intelligent  and  fair  national  laws  of  railway  supervision.  The 
nation  should  watch  closely  and  prescribe  little.  The  mere 
fact  that  the  Government  is  watching  and  admonishing  will 
correct  many  wrongs  that  should  be  corrected.  A question 
that  touches  so  nearly  the  whole  people,  and  is  so  nearly  the 
foundation  of  all  fiscal  credit,  should  be  approached  with  dig- 
nity and  intelligence  on  both  sides. 

Robert  Stephenson  said  to  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain 
what  our  railway  men  now  respectfully  say  to  our  Con- 
gress : “What  we  want  is  a tribunal  upon  those 
subjects  competent  to  judge  and  willing  to  devote  its 
attention  to  railway  subjects  alone.  We  do  not  impute  to 
Parliament  that  it  is  dishonest,  but  we  impute  that  it  is  incom- 
petent. Neither  its  practical  experience,  no::  its  time,  nor 
its  system  of  procedure,  is  adapted  for  railway  legislation.  . 

. . . What  we  ask  is  knowledge.  ‘ Give  us,’  we  say,  * a 

tribunal  competent  to  form  a sound  opinion.  Commit  to  that 
tribunal,  with  any  restrictions  you  may  think  necessary,  the 
whole  of  the  great  qxiestions  appertaining  to  our  system. 


